My opinion but keeping in mind, I might be slightly biased.
I bought the Gardner dime at the Heritage auction in 2014 and paid $22,900 plus change.
The Simpson dime just sold for $102,000 at Heritage several days ago.
The Simpson dime has wonderful toning contrast between ultra white fading to semi-deep toning near the upper obverse rim. It does have noticeable lower grade level chatter on the obverse cheek, breast, and leg but because of the exceptional luster and cameo luster effect still fully qualifies it as a CAC acceptable net graded MS-68.
The Gardner dime which was purchased by Joseph O’ Conner who was successful in winning the Heritage Auction in October 2001 when I was paying more attention to the aftermath of 9-11 than to coins. He then sold it to Gardner. I closely followed both the Simpson and the Gardner dimes thereafter and saw both in person.
The Gardner dime also has amazing mint luster but the toning does obscure it a bit in photos. In person tge mint luster is very apparent. However, this dime is much more free of any chatter whatsoever and is a perfect MS-68 instead of a net graded MS-68.
As to whether either or both dines were once dipped and later retoned, my only reply is that if so, they were done with great care and preserved very carefully.
Choosing one vs the other dime is really a matter of personal preference.
I must say that I like my $22,900 plus price much more than the $102,000 price!
Not sure the Simpson coin is graded correctly as it has to much chatter for a small size dime to be 68+ no matter how much eye appeal. I think many of the pedigree coins are overgraded due simply to belonging to a famous collector.
“The Simpson dime has wonderful toning contrast between ultra white fading to semi-deep toning near the upper obverse rim. It does have noticeable LOWER GRADE LEVEL CHATTER on the obverse cheek, breast, and leg but because of the exceptional luster and cameo luster effect still fully qualifies it as a CAC acceptable net graded MS-68. “
While I observed the exact same chatter issue on the Simpson dime that you raised afterwards, I am giving CAC the benefit of a doubt that they believe the Simpson dime is a solid 68 graded coin. I do admit that I might be biased in favor of the Gardner dime. After all, ownership of the Gardner dime is always worth an extra point or so.
Stevie:
I did state previously:
“The Simpson dime has wonderful toning contrast between ultra white fading to semi-deep toning near the upper obverse rim. It does have noticeable LOWER GRADE LEVEL CHATTER on the obverse cheek, breast, and leg but because of the exceptional luster and cameo luster effect still fully qualifies it as a CAC acceptable net graded MS-68. “
While I observed the exact same chatter issue on the Simpson dime that you raised afterwards,
I am giving CAC the benefit of a doubt that they believe the Simpson dime is a solid 68 graded coin. I do admit that I might be biased in favor of the Gardner dime. After all, ownership of the Gardner dime is always worth an extra point or so.
But do you think if an everyday collector sent in this exact same dime without this pedigree it would come back 68+ or even 68, or more likely 67 or 67+ almost every time? And would CAC give it a gold sticker at 67?
I loved the Simpson coin-of course, I placed it with him. To see it in hand was spectacular. I was the underbidder on it in the sale. I absolutely regret not buying it. Old friends like that just do not appear.
Is the coin worth $100,000.00? YES! Todays market has spoken. I know we were not the only bidders in the upper atmosphere. To get a great coin like that you have to overpay-or create the new market level.
While some of you may think the Gardner coin is nicer-I have seen it, the Simpson coin is headlight. And no, I do NOT think it was dipped. Heck, it was, whoever can dip all my coins, they did a monster job!
“The Simpson dime has wonderful toning contrast between ultra white fading to semi-deep toning near the upper obverse rim. It does have noticeable LOWER GRADE LEVEL CHATTER on the obverse cheek, breast, and leg but because of the exceptional luster and cameo luster effect still fully qualifies it as a CAC acceptable net graded MS-68. “
While I observed the exact same chatter issue on the Simpson dime that you raised afterwards, I am giving CAC the benefit of a doubt that they believe the Simpson dime is a solid 68 graded coin. I do admit that I might be biased in favor of the Gardner dime. After all, ownership of the Gardner dime is always worth an extra point or so.
But do you think if an everyday collector sent in this exact same dime without this pedigree it would come back 68+ or even 68, or more likely 67 or 67+ almost every time? And would CAC give it a gold sticker at 67?
My answer is very simple. i have had the chance to observe JA and CAC in action. JA clearly loves everyday coin collectors and tries to level the playing field between dealers and everyday collectors and pedigreed and non pedigreed coins. He treats every day collectors and their coins equally whether they are a pedigreed coin or not. You need partial proof? An everyday collector submitting as a collectors member is charged no grading fee if their submission fails. Dealers do not get that deal.
I loved the Simpson coin-of course, I placed it with him. To see it in hand was spectacular. I was the underbidder on it in the sale. I absolutely regret not buying it. Old friends like that just do not appear.
Is the coin worth $100,000.00? YES! Todays market has spoken. I know we were not the only bidders in the upper atmosphere. To get a great coin like that you have to overpay-or create the new market level.
While some of you may think the Gardner coin is nicer-I have seen it, the Simpson coin is headlight. And no, I do NOT think it was dipped. Heck, it was, whoever can dip all my coins, they did a monster job!
Both coins appear dipped to these eyes, most likely during different eras. Unless the Simpson coin came out of a roll, dark edges and blast white centers at that age suggest blast white and reactive holder post dipping with limited air flow years ago, most likely an early NGC or early ANACS but possibly an album. The gardener coin is clearly older and but the wet even look speaks to dipped and envelope toning decades ago.
That said I am not the expert others such as your self are so my opinion is worth what the board paid for it
I loved the Simpson coin-of course, I placed it with him. To see it in hand was spectacular. I was the underbidder on it in the sale. I absolutely regret not buying it. Old friends like that just do not appear.
Is the coin worth $100,000.00? YES! Todays market has spoken. I know we were not the only bidders in the upper atmosphere. To get a great coin like that you have to overpay-or create the new market level.
While some of you may think the Gardner coin is nicer-I have seen it, the Simpson coin is headlight. And no, I do NOT think it was dipped. Heck, it was, whoever can dip all my coins, they did a monster job!
I also love the Simpson dime but it is like the Mickey Mantle vs Willie Mays baseball player argument back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. Once you side with one you argue even so slightly against the other. Competition is fun.
To be able to clearly view the luster in a photo on a small coin like the Simpson dime does attest to its “headlight” character which is amazing and one of a kind in itself.
Had I already not owned the Gardner dime, I might have bought the Simpson dime instead before Simpson bought it I do not know how much he paid for it.
Likewise, had the Gardner dime been available and the Simpson dime not been available to Simpson would he have wanted the Gardner dime as an alternative? Again, I do not know. Only Simpson and possibly Legend Laura would know.
I have also bought a decent number of coins from Legend and she is fabulous in finding great coins at a reasonable price but I enjoy being a free agent more in finding my coins. The thrill of the hunt, is what drives me.
Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.
As stated, that’s of course, correct. However, generally, the older the coin is, the less likely that’s the case.
While working for David Hall in the mid 80’s I did witness the purchase of two rolls of blazing, color-free gem Seated Liberty dimes. I believe they were dated1883 and1884, though each might have been a year later.
Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.
As stated, that’s of course, correct. However, generally, the older the coin is, the less likely that’s the case.
While working for David Hall in the mid 80’s I did witness the purchase of two rolls of blazing, color-free gem Seated Liberty dime rolls. I believe they were dated1883 and1884, though each might have been a year later.
Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.
To be clear I too have seen blast white 100 year old coins but there was typically from controlled environment storage in play. Bags, rolls or other low air circulation environments most often stacked coins.
My opinion about them being dipped is about their looks and patterns. Esp collector coins that have been cherished for generations and fiddled with rarely stay white without help. These patterns look with dipped coins becoming reactive again after having their older protective layered removed. Their increased reactivity retones to fairly standard collector storage methods and you get fairly repeatable looks/patterns even if the specific colors and consistencies vary dramatically.
Those appear to be classic envelope tone and NGC No line tone and most likely they we fresh silver when they reacted and the variable is when that was. That of course speculation on my part and they could have come out of long term protection before toning in those manners. the wet look of the Gardner coin could come from the original mint washes /planchet treatment residues reacting to the elemental exposure inconsistently
Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?
Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?
Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
You were erroneous in your text.
This is a dime we are discussing, not a half dime. LOL.
Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?
Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
Are you saying that you think the coin is a ms 67.9 meaning you agree with a 67+ grade, not 68 or 68+? I am still saying anyway that I think famous ownership subtly affects the graders thinking by 1/2 to 1 point at least in most cases. It’s just human nature I believe. The old phrase “ownership adds a point “
Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?
Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
Are you saying that you think the coin is a ms 67.9 meaning you agree with a 67+ grade, not 68 or 68+? I am still saying anyway that I think famous ownership subtly affects the graders thinking by 1/2 to 1 point at least in most cases. It’s just human nature I believe. The old phrase “ownership adds a point “
The expression “ownership adds a point” is typically used to mean that owners of coins tend to think their coins are under-graded and deserve a higher grade.
Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?
Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
Are you saying that you think the coin is a ms 67.9 meaning you agree with a 67+ grade, not 68 or 68+? I am still saying anyway that I think famous ownership subtly affects the graders thinking by 1/2 to 1 point at least in most cases. It’s just human nature I believe. The old phrase “ownership adds a point “
The expression “ownership adds a point” is typically used to mean that owners of coins tend to think their coins are under-graded and deserve a higher grade.
I was transferring the phrase meaning to say famous ownership can influence the graders psychologically to give a higher grade.
Comments
There is also a 7 (plus) year difference.
I did state previously:
“The Simpson dime has wonderful toning contrast between ultra white fading to semi-deep toning near the upper obverse rim. It does have noticeable LOWER GRADE LEVEL CHATTER on the obverse cheek, breast, and leg but because of the exceptional luster and cameo luster effect still fully qualifies it as a CAC acceptable net graded MS-68. “
While I observed the exact same chatter issue on the Simpson dime that you raised afterwards,
I am giving CAC the benefit of a doubt that they believe the Simpson dime is a solid 68 graded coin. I do admit that I might be biased in favor of the Gardner dime. After all, ownership of the Gardner dime is always worth an extra point or so.
Is the coin worth $100,000.00? YES! Todays market has spoken. I know we were not the only bidders in the upper atmosphere. To get a great coin like that you have to overpay-or create the new market level.
While some of you may think the Gardner coin is nicer-I have seen it, the Simpson coin is headlight. And no, I do NOT think it was dipped. Heck, it was, whoever can dip all my coins, they did a monster job!
My answer is very simple. i have had the chance to observe JA and CAC in action. JA clearly loves everyday coin collectors and tries to level the playing field between dealers and everyday collectors and pedigreed and non pedigreed coins. He treats every day collectors and their coins equally whether they are a pedigreed coin or not.
You need partial proof? An everyday collector submitting as a collectors member is charged no grading fee if their submission fails. Dealers do not get that deal.
To be able to clearly view the luster in a photo on a small coin like the Simpson dime does attest to its “headlight” character which is amazing and one of a kind in itself.
Had I already not owned the Gardner dime, I might have bought the Simpson dime instead before Simpson bought it
I do not know how much he paid for it.
Likewise, had the Gardner dime been available and the Simpson dime not been available to Simpson would he have wanted the Gardner dime as an alternative? Again, I do not know. Only Simpson and possibly Legend Laura would know.
I have also bought a decent number of coins from Legend and she is fabulous in finding great coins at a reasonable price but I enjoy being a free agent more in finding my coins. The thrill of the hunt, is what drives me.
While working for David Hall in the mid 80’s I did witness the purchase of two rolls of blazing, color-free gem Seated Liberty dimes. I believe they were dated1883 and1884, though each might have been a year later.
I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++
If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.
But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.
This is a dime we are discussing, not a half dime. LOL.
The expression “ownership adds a point” is typically used to mean that owners of coins tend to think their coins are under-graded and deserve a higher grade.